figma_export

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the idempotentHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses concrete output behavior: PNG/JPG attach inline as images (up to 2 MB), SVG/JSON come back inline as text (up to 200 KB). It doesn't mention PDF behavior, but the main return behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The 'local files' phrasing is slightly at odds with the inline-return explanation, but the description is compact and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It covers PNG/JPG/SVG/JSON outputs and size limits, but with no output schema it leaves PDF behavior and the meaning of 'local files' (where files land when inline=false) unexplained. That's a meaningful gap for a 6-parameter export tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains scale, format, inline, nodeIds, contentsOnly, and useAbsoluteBounds. The description adds size limits and inline-return context, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export nodes to local files.' It also clarifies the main output families (raster images, SVG, JSON) and their intended roles, which sets it apart from sibling tools like figma_status or figma_find. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear format-selection guidance: PNG/JPG for the 'screenshot path' and JSON for 'design-to-code tooling,' plus inline-vs-file context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or sibling-tool comparisons, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.